I'm glad you said that again, because that's exactly what I have understood from the beginning. I feel like the debate that's been going on for the last six weeks may have been unnecessary and that this committee could have resolved this issue long ago, if only we had taken the time to really listen to what the people we were talking to were saying.
Mr. Ripley, I have a question for you.
Personally, I worked for about 30 years in the media, in radio and television. Like other colleagues who have had a career in the media, I've followed the CRTC's activities and have seen its decisions. I may not have followed it all closely, but I took an interest in it. I've also been aware of the regulations and the changes that have been made to them over the years, even though they didn't always go the way we would have liked, particularly with respect to radio.
When it comes to regulations, the CRTC operates through hearings. When the CRTC puts regulations in place, it's as a result of hearings. The various stakeholders who wish to participate in these hearings send in their briefs or requests to appear. Subsequently, some are invited to appear to make their views known during the process. In the end, it works relatively the same way as a parliamentary committee.
Do you agree that if people who use online platforms to make a living from their art and creations feel challenged by this bill and by the introduction of these new regulations, they are free to participate in the CRTC's public hearings, in this case? Am I wrong in making that interpretation?